Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think worrying about silly arrows is a waste of time/energy. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

I think worrying about silly arrows is a waste of time/energy. 

 

Absolutely agree - the whole arrows thing should be knocked on the head.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, I'm absolutely with you on this. The discussion of fees here might not accomplish much, but it doesn't give away much either. I can't imagine that there are many buyers who don't know the going rates. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I've said it before and I'll say it again, your posts have an ethical underpinning that makes them very hard for me to argue with. That won't stop me from asking basic questions though. So ... what is it about the stock photo business that should make it more moral than the rest of the media business? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t care about red, green or even black arrows here. If some forum members only want to view the world through Alamy tinted glasses then sadly they are deluded. I try to stay polite but I really feel there is a hardcord hostile group here who are in denial. I shared my fees and I can imagine them putting their hands over their ears and closing their eyes saying “ I”m not listening” like Golem in LOTR.

Edited by Marb
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

What actually upsets me about fees is how the gullible are fleeced by the stock industry.

 

Church group, museum, charity - full whack for you.

 

Global media company you get it for peanuts.

 

This is an immoral industry in so many ways..

 

I don't know why you think the stock business is any different than any other.  The large volume buyers always pay less, whether it be images or dresses, or in my case hardware, webbing or industrial fabrics.  I pay more because I buy less.

 

Not sure what is immoral about it.  It is the way all business is run.

 

I sell my dog collars wholesale - the more you buy, the less I will charge.

 

Jill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I thought that we had reached the bottom of the death spiral but obviously  not. :(

 

How exactly are photographers supposed to make ends meet? 

 

Ian!  youre forgetting! Alamy is nowadays  more or less a Micro-agency, a bit higher but still extremely close to micro!...I think they have to in order to survive!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha!!  honestly people I mean lets be frank is there really such a thing left as a proper Trad agency holding trad prices?? I can only think of ONE and they really DO sell and its NOT the big-G. who in their turn very often sell for less then even here!

 

However good news!  companies have now begun to buy plots of land on Mars! so just imagine being among the first agencies establishing contacts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you define a micro agency? To me they need to offer subscriptions which Alamy don't do but the download packs is one giant step towards this in all but another name. 

 

Some sales on here are micro prices but the average is still quite superior ( $1 vs $25 net)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

How would you define a micro agency? To me they need to offer subscriptions which Alamy don't do but the download packs is one giant step towards this in all but another name. 

 

Some sales on here are micro prices but the average is still quite superior ( $1 vs $25 net)

I wish it was $25 net. My average net for the first 6 weeks of this year has sunk to $11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The one significant way that this business is different from any other is that the stock photo companies do not pay for what they sell.

 

Large volume buyers paying less is one thing - a few $ for a page, potential front page is another. The publisher loves that deal, the agency makes money from the volume, the individual photographer ends up with enough to buy a coffee if he/she is lucky. 

 

Maybe not 'immoral' as such but neither is it such a good business for the photographer. $9 to a large media company is just crazy, but sadly that compares well with fees that are normal elsewhere. So it is a spiral downwards that seems never to reach the floor.

 

Somebody once joked about a potential future where photographers paid to have their images published - doesn't see so improbable these days.

 

 

 

Whether they pay in advance or on billing doesn't change the basic business model.

 

As for the rest, that again is simply supply and demand.  I would think price can now depend on the image and just how many of that one particular subject are available either at Alamy themselves or in the competition.  Whether you want to argue about microstock, it is a reality and Alamy have to compete with it in many areas.  It is not going away. Alamy can't bury their heads in the sand and say "We still want $100 for this image even though there are similar ones for $10 over at MS.  We want to look after our photographers."  The newspaper doesn't care about the photographer, the magazine doesn't car either.  They have a bottom line and have to make money.   And these days it is tougher for them as well to come out in the black.

 

It is a very competitive world and Alamy have to compete.  Instead of hundreds of photographers selling at agencies that the public couldn't submit to, now their are thousands of photographers submitting thousands of images daily to the online agencies.

 

Quality of equipment, quality of PP software, and the low operating cost compared to the darkroom days has opened up photography to every human with a camera. Most of whom don't make a living from photography, its just additional income.

 

That is just a reality and it is here to stay.

 

Jill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I don't agree that stock prices are primarily determined by supply and demand  ie) the traditional price mechanism. The demand is usually for one image for a specific use and almost always there is a supply of more than one. Whether the supply is 1000 or 10,000 makes no difference. 

 

Fees have fallen because uses have changed ( online web uses), traditional media revenue streams have dried up or slowed down,  and because new business models have developed to profit from volume sales. 

 

All the rest I agree with and have said much the same myself. 

 

You and Jill you encapsulate the problem, to use the popular vernacular (which I hate) - it is a perfect storm, so many, mostly technological, factors combining to disrupt a traditional market. (like cheap petrol and the motor vehicle destroying job opportunities for wheelwrights, grooms, coachmen, ostlers and farriers, but creating new jobs: drivers, mechanics etc). And it is not just happening in photography, there is a lot more to come in many other industries over the next few decades. Whether it is good or bad will depend on how it affects the individual being asked the question.

 

Bear in mind that this new technology has created new opportunities albeit many are low in price but high in overall volume and undemanding of quiality e.g. web use. So more people can fulfil the need.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

I think worrying about silly arrows is a waste of time/energy. 

 

I concur - why even go back and look at your own post to see how many of each colour, waste of time. 

 

At OP - shame about low priced sales, really is - think RM is running out of cash and it's RF where the dough is.

 

All IMHO. Peace!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Somebody once joked about a potential future where photographers paid to have their images published - doesn't see so improbable these days." Well, is already happening as far some Competitions and  Awards are concerned. I am sure that was a joke too few years ago,  to pay to enter a competion.  A well-known  photography site asks minimum entry $20 fee, in return for exposure and a chance to get published and win awards.. And you can submit as many images you want, so there is no limit to how much you can pay. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Orhan Tsolak said:

"Somebody once joked about a potential future where photographers paid to have their images published - doesn't see so improbable these days." Well, is already happening as far some Competitions and  Awards are concerned. I am sure that was a joke too few years ago,  to pay to enter a competion.  A well-known  photography site asks minimum entry $20 fee, in return for exposure and a chance to get published and win awards.. And you can submit as many images you want, so there is no limit to how much you can pay. 

 

I think the main reason some compeitions are charging for entry is too simply cut down the number of entries to only those that think they have a decent image.  With no entry fee, then they would be bombarded with thousands upon thousands of images.  They want to avoid this, so by having the fee, it cuts out all the average Joe photographers that don't really have a competitive image.

 

Many competitions have entry fees and have had for years.  Not a new concept.

 

Jill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I think the main reason some compeitions are charging for entry is too simply cut down the number of entries to only those that think they have a decent image.  With no entry fee, then they would be bombarded with thousands upon thousands of images.  They want to avoid this, so by having the fee, it cuts out all the average Joe photographers that don't really have a competitive image.

 

Many competitions have entry fees and have had for years.  Not a new concept.

 

Jill

In some competitions it must be indeed a means for cutting out the average Joe, in photojournalism competitions they ask you a proof that you are one, but there are also photography sites which are really are there in order to make make money through entry fees.  One photography site charges as much $60 to  enter with a series of photos its competition. That's a lot of money just to cut out the average Joe. In a way they cut out the poor Joe. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Orhan Tsolak said:

"Somebody once joked about a potential future where photographers paid to have their images published - doesn't see so improbable these days." Well, is already happening as far some Competitions and  Awards are concerned. I am sure that was a joke too few years ago,  to pay to enter a competion.  A well-known  photography site asks minimum entry $20 fee, in return for exposure and a chance to get published and win awards.. And you can submit as many images you want, so there is no limit to how much you can pay. 

 

It is a way to make money, I see the same thing with business awards. You "win" an award and you get to spend a fortune on a table at the presentation and drink over-priced champagne. The awards play to the business owners ego but I am not convinced they do much for sales, it has never added anything to the desirability of the product for me as a customer.

 

Look at the prize fund for a photo, or literary, competition and then work out how many entries are needed to cover it, I think you will be surprised how few it is in most cases!

 

Call me a cynic ...

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

 

I have the same feeling and I haven’t read all the replies... but what do you expect?

 

- more and more photographers get into Stock...

- this is partly due to digital photography being more and more afordable...

- partly due to many new stock agencies...

- with the sheer number of photos being uploaded, many agencies don’t care anymore avout QC...Alamy is imho an exception! And I’m happy Alamy is working like this!

- newspapers, news agencies also having huge concurence...

- and tens of years photographers uploading photos that can be used for editorial and RF use...

-etc... 

 

Be positive, photograph subjects in an unusual way, techinacly perfect, best suited for RF, editioral or whatever... just do your thing and enjoy..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, christian58 said:

Haha!!  honestly people I mean lets be frank is there really such a thing left as a proper Trad agency holding trad prices?? I can only think of ONE and they really DO sell and its NOT the big-G. who in their turn very often sell for less then even here!

 

 

Specialist agencies who sell specialist images to a defined market? I know of a couple...

 

GI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

That's simply untrue. Alamy is not a micro-stock agency. But it has to compete with micro-stock agencies and micro-stock pricing.

 

Exactly!!  having to compete with micro and that means close to same pricing or else NO sale! the only difference is Alamy do not have subs as micro-agencies  but I expect that to come in nearby future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

It is a way to make money, I see the same thing with business awards. You "win" an award and you get to spend a fortune on a table at the presentation and drink over-priced champagne. The awards play to the business owners ego but I am not convinced they do much for sales, it has never added anything to the desirability of the product for me as a customer.

 

 

I used to be a member of my local chamber of commerce and every year it has its annual dinner. At this dinner, the annual business awards are dished out to excited business owners in a packed hall.  That's 1100 people, each paying €125 for the privilege. The awards mean absolutely nothing and yet companies and SME's revel in this glamorous evening and like you said, all these types of awards do is inflate the egos of the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

 

I doubt that'll happen.

 

All this doom and gloom isn't really helping how many of us feel. I don't think things are quite as bad as threads like this make us feel they are.

 

Everyone sing along with me:

 

"I am H-A-P-P-Y, I am H-A-P-P-Y, I know I am, I'm sure I am, I am H-A-P-P-Y".

 

Nobody? Ok at least I tried.

 

Geoff.

 

I'm H-A-P-P-Y, Geoff.  I love the whole Alamy experience and, although I'm not making daily sales, I'm very happy with most of the fees I get for my pics.  I think the doom and gloom is totally unnecessary - LET'S ALL BE POSITIVE!!!  :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone's got a camera these days and some mobile phone images are outstanding and image quality is fine for online and most images are for online these days. That maybe another reason demand for high quality images is in decline

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

You have been saying that for ten years and it hasn't happened yet! :)

 

Aren't the QI, newspaper scheme close to a subscription? And wasn't there mention, on the blog or in response to a CR query , a few montrhs ago of packages and something akin to a subscription. Alamy plays the detaails of its sales arranagement with clients VERY close to its chest.

 

Just askin'

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GS-Images said:

 

True to an extent, but the images don't compare to a decent DSLR and high quality lens, processed properly. You also can't get many types of images with a phone, such as birds in flight. Also the processing is a huge part of things, more than I think many casual hobby photographers realise. Many of my images look poor as a camera-generated jpg, but after processing the RAW myself and sometimes going to further lengths to change the image, I create something that's far more appealing and stands out.

 

I think there'll always be a market for high quality images, taken by photographers who understand lighting, DoF, framing for the best look, good processing skills, etc.. I can even see the higher quality images starting to earn higher fees again in future, as publishers look for more unique and professional images and are fed up with noisy, over-sharpened phone shots taken in poor lighting.

 

Geoff.

 

Not quite sure why someone chose to give you a red arrow for this, Geoff? :huh::(  Cancelled it out for you :) (that'll probably earn me a reddun :lol:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.